• Jonathan M Davis (20/20) Oct 15 2010 Okay. Bug http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4867 is turning ...

Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:

Okay. Bug http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4867 is turning out to 
be a _big_ problem for the code that I'm working on at the moment. That
combined 
with various bugs with regards to invariants is making dealing with const for 
certain things extremely difficult.

In this case, I have a struct which is a value type. It holds a long and a 
Rebindable which holds an immutable object. It _should_ be copyable without a 
postblit constructor, but the compiler apparently isn't smart enough to figure 
that out and complains up the wazoo. And thanks to the aforementioned bug, I 
can't _have_ a postblit. Bleh.

I can almost solve the problem on some level by creating a variable and then 
assigning to it with an overloaded opAssign(), except that the init for the 
struct type violates its invariant, so opAssign() blows up (maybe opAssign() 
shouldn't care about invariants...).

The only thing that I can think of (beyond giving up on const for some portions 

cast 
that casts away the constness of the struct. The question is whether this is 
safe. Since it's a struct, it should do a bit for bit copy, which should be 
totally valid, so I _think_ that it's safe, but I'd like to be sure. Does
anyone 
know for sure if casting away constness like that would be safe?

- Jonathan M Davis